Is there a point of learning Aperture,ISO,Shutter speed?

[Kerbouchard]

Yep - its agreeing with what I said earlier - that the disagreement in the thread stems from the fact that a few started talking about Exposure in scientific terms on a photography forum where the average person us not a scientist, but a photographer and thus uses the technical term with a slight variation on the meaning.

Ergo no one was disagreeing, just that those with the science background tried to make a statement about a definition of a word without fully expressing that they were not referring to the same word that the average photographer understands.

Whilst getting mixed in there was some crazy stuff about how ISO has only been important since the digital age or since Bryan Peterson wrote a book (which as far as I can tell is a whole red-herring argument).

No, it's not. That post is acknowledging that beginners don't need to know how their camera works and that the actual meanings of words have become corrupted by other newbies and passed down as credible information. I can go to downtown Dallas and listen to all sorts of conversations with idiots who improperly use words but still manage to get their message across. They manage to communicate, but it's not because those words have an actual meaning. It's more because their level of ignorance is equal and they are on the same page. That works for them there. Now, if they were to enter a Board Room, they would be completely out of place.

This is the 'beyond the basics' section. The people who post here should have an understanding beyond the basics. If they don't, they should accept(and welcome) their ideas to get challenged. That goes for the Moderators, too. Like I said earlier, this thread has made it clear why just about every new topic is posted in the beginner's forum. The main 'clique' and most active of the members here seem to belong there.

When you are using words that have an actual definition, you shouldn't attribute a 'new definition' to those terms just because others like you understand what you are saying. It doesn't work that way. Words have a true meaning. On an international forum, it's only fair that you use words in their established way. Like I said, I don't care what you do in the beginner's forum. That has nothing to do with a 'beyond the basics' thread regarding ISO, aperture, and shutter speed.

Photography was invented by scientists. The terms that are used are well defined. Just because you want them to mean something different or don't 'feel' they are well defined, gives you no right to ignore the science that makes photography possible(or the dictionary). As far as ISO not being important, I'm not sure that was ever stated. Of course it's important. Just as much in digital as it was in film. Still doesn't make it part of exposure.

Put simply, a lot of you ended up with egg on your face. There isn't any justifying it. There isn't any way to make all the or the :lmao: look any better. All you end up looking like is .

It's just a bit sad that a moderator decided to take part in the piling on.

I referenced the definitions, I referenced my statements with facts. You decided to attempt to make fun of me saying I was all alone and out on left field. One more person who won't back down to a mob comes along, and the entire dynamic changes...It's actually a bit funny to me. After we got past that, I think a few people actually learned something. So, all in all, IMO, the discussion had merit.

In any case, as I said to Destin, words have a meaning. This is an international forum, people should not choose to ignore the definition of a word from every credible dictionary, encyclopedia, or scientific journal just because the established definition isn't one they agree with. Sounds more like a problem with the individual that shouldn't be forced out as gospel.

Like I said, the fact that the same freaking book is recommended to every single new poster might have something to do with some of the common misconceptions of this forum when in reality, it isn't all that complicated.

 

[Destin]

This was the ULTIMATE hijack of a thread. Lol

 

[Kerbouchard]

This was the ULTIMATE hijack of a thread. Lol

Yep, and for what it's worth, it was your uninformed post that set me off. Nicely done.

As far as a hijack, for a subject of learning aperture, shutterspeed, and ISO in a 'beyond the basics' forum, I wouldn't exactly consider it a hijack...unless, again, you are talking about your posts.

 

[kundalini]

Respect George. This has been one of the better discussions on the boards for a while. I know you don't need it nor necessarily want it, but :thumbsup:

 

[Destin]

Yep, and for what it's worth, it was your uninformed post that set me off. Nicely done.

As far as a hijack, for a subject of learning aperture, shutterspeed, and ISO in a 'beyond the basics' forum, I wouldn't exactly consider it a hijack...unless, again, you are talking about your posts.

I've gotta ask, what's your problem with me?

I still don't agree with you on this, because the meanings of words changes over time. Dictionary's put out new editions on a regular basis for a reason. The dictionary's definition of exposure, off of which you base your argument, is starting to lose its accuracy.

As the use of words in a culture change, so too does the dictionary's definition of them. Exposure, as it applies to modern digital photography, should absolutely contain iso in its definition.

But we clearly need to agree to disagree on this one. I'm just confused as to what I ever did to piss you off. And this goes farther than this thread. Every time I post anything you argue against what I say every time. You seriously just need to quit reading into everything so far, and stop being such a d-bag.

As far as this thread being hijacked, just because we were talking about the exposure triangle (that's gonna piss you off, is it?), we were not even close to on topic as far as answering the OP's question.

 

[tevo]

Unless you plan on shooting snapshots in auto with ideal light / flash for the rest of forever, then YES it is important to learn this. And you forget that the "aesthetic effects" such as bokeh and DoF is meaningless without composition. Composition is everything, and if you don't know how to use your camera 100% then you will not be able to compose a photo in the way that you want to. Go investigate the exposure triangle, rule of thirds, general composition, etc.

I am honestly shocked by this thread, lol

 

[tevo]

Yup, Bokeh and Depth of field. You're in there.

I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but pardon my ignorance lol. Whenever I see Photography, the only discernible technique I ever see used is a shallow depth of field, or Bokeh. That's all I ever really see..So that leads me to believe that not much can really be achieved then..So wouldn't it be easier to just do Auto then..

The technique you see is composition. Bokeh is just DoF, and DoF is used to highlight the center of interest, among other things. If you knew what composition was, the answer to your OP would be very clear, lol.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Yep, and for what it's worth, it was your uninformed post that set me off. Nicely done.

As far as a hijack, for a subject of learning aperture, shutterspeed, and ISO in a 'beyond the basics' forum, I wouldn't exactly consider it a hijack...unless, again, you are talking about your posts.

I've gotta ask, what's your problem with me?

I still don't agree with you on this, because the meanings of words changes over time. Dictionary's put out new editions on a regular basis for a reason. The dictionary's definition of exposure, off of which you base your argument, is starting to lose its accuracy.

As the use of words in a culture change, so too does the dictionary's definition of them. Exposure, as it applies to modern digital photography, should absolutely contain iso in its definition.

But we clearly need to agree to disagree on this one. I'm just confused as to what I ever did to piss you off. And this goes farther than this thread. Every time I post anything you argue against what I say every time. You seriously just need to quit reading into everything so far, and stop being such a d-bag.

As far as this thread being hijacked, just because we were talking about the exposure triangle (that's gonna piss you off, is it?), we were not even close to on topic as far as answering the OP's question.

You ask me why I seem to disagree with most of what you have to say and then you decide to call me a 'd-bag'. When you can use grown up language, we can continue the discussion.

Unless you plan on shooting snapshots in auto with ideal light / flash for the rest of forever, then YES it is important to learn this. And you forget that the "aesthetic effects" such as bokeh and DoF is meaningless without composition. Composition is everything, and if you don't know how to use your camera 100% then you will not be able to compose a photo in the way that you want to. Go investigate the exposure triangle, rule of thirds, general composition, etc.

I am honestly shocked by this thread, lol

It's a bit silly for you to post this after you just finished asking which button to push on your lens to make it focus. You want to give expert advice, but you don't understand that you can't just push a button on your lens to make it focus? Seriouisly?

There seems to be a disconnect between a majority of the members and reality. All want to come off as experts, but very few of them have any idea what they are talking about. Most are just repeating things they have heard before. It's about time some of you learned to think for yourself.

Jeez, it's like I'm surrounded by morons. Maybe it's time for me to move to a different forum.

 

[tevo]

Oh ok, so Manual is for accurate exposure. I understand that.. But the one thing that bothers me is that.. There doesn't seem like you can do much with a Camera once you learn how to properly use it.. Like, technique wise. Like I said, from what I understand the two primary techniques you can apply in Manual is using Depth Of Field to create interesting shots, and create Bokeh as well. But is there anything else you can do?..

No, manual is for you to have complete control over what your camera is doing. Meaning YOU set the shutter speed (exposure), based off the matrix that the meter reads, and YOU set the aperture, and YOU set the whitebalance. Not the camera. Seeing as though generations of photographers shot film, and still produced great images, WITH NO AUTO MODE, then why would it not be important to know the exposure triangle? Manual is just like shooting a film SLR (with some improvements, obviously), but on a digital camera.

 

[Overread]

Kerbouchard - I'm still confused - mostly because its not Understanding exposure which says that ISO is part of exposure, but every single guide I've ever read concerning photography (some written before UE) - heck I only got the book after learning most of exposure and whilst I keep the copy it didn't give me many revelations.

In the end I'm still coming to the same conclusion that Exposure is a word with (at least) duel meanings - one within the photography world of the average photographer - and another within the scientific based world that photography is founded upon. As such, and since this is a photography forum not a physics forum, it still stands to confuse most when you take the science angle (even in beyond the basics) directed at a majority of the population who are not scientists/physicists.
It's highly likely that a large number of us need to read far more into the physics behind photography in order to appreciate the "error" that you are attempting to correct; but when that "error" in terminology is used throughout the whole of the photography hobby/practice with (as far as I've noticed) no suitable alternative being suggested/used - then it does appear to me to be a duel world meaning situation based on the context of the discussion at hand.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Oh ok, so Manual is for accurate exposure. I understand that.. But the one thing that bothers me is that.. There doesn't seem like you can do much with a Camera once you learn how to properly use it.. Like, technique wise. Like I said, from what I understand the two primary techniques you can apply in Manual is using Depth Of Field to create interesting shots, and create Bokeh as well. But is there anything else you can do?..

No, manual is for you to have complete control over what your camera is doing. Meaning YOU set the shutter speed (exposure), based off the matrix that the meter reads, and YOU set the aperture, and YOU set the whitebalance. Not the camera. Seeing as though generations of photographers shot film, and still produced great images, WITH NO AUTO MODE, then why would it not be important to know the exposure triangle? Manual is just like shooting a film SLR (with some improvements, obviously), but on a digital camera.

See the post above as to why you are unqualified to make the statements you are making. A few hours ago, you were trying to figure out which button on your lens to push to make it focus and how to assign those 'buttons' to 'AF-ON'...LOL

 

[MissCream]

WARNING: The following maybe an incredibly face palming thing to say.


Doesn't ISO control the sensitivity of the light that is exposed to the sensor? I see it as two different things :S

 

[Kerbouchard]

Kerbouchard - I'm still confused - mostly because its not Understanding exposure which says that ISO is part of exposure, but every single guide I've ever read concerning photography (some written before UE) - heck I only got the book after learning most of exposure and whilst I keep the copy it didn't give me many revelations.

In the end I'm still coming to the same conclusion that Exposure is a word with (at least) duel meanings - one within the photography world of the average photographer - and another within the scientific based world that photography is founded upon. As such, and since this is a photography forum not a physics forum, it still stands to confuse most when you take the science angle (even in beyond the basics) directed at a majority of the population who are not scientists/physicists.
It's highly likely that a large number of us need to read far more into the physics behind photography in order to appreciate the "error" that you are attempting to correct; but when that "error" in terminology is used throughout the whole of the photography hobby/practice with (as far as I've noticed) no suitable alternative being suggested/used - then it does appear to me to be a duel world meaning situation based on the context of the discussion at hand.

Except that it's not a dual word meaning. Nobody has produced even one link to a credible or recognized source saying ISO is a part of exposure. On the contrary, all of mine, and several of the references have said, that indeed, ISO, is not technically a part of exposure. The scientific definitions don't match how you use it. The dictionary definitions don't match how you use it.

Dude, I don't know what else to say. Just because a bunch of people use a word to mean something other than what it does, doesn't mean it's right. Honestly, I can't argue with your logic. You get your point across to others like you.

IMO, in the next few years, Webster, will probably add another footnote in the definition of 'exposure' to appease people like you. At that point, I won't have a leg to stand on...a bunch of morons will have successfully changed the definition of a word. It won't be the first time that has happened.

Until then, ISO is not a part of Exposure. Period.

P.S., show me one source that explains how to measure ISO in 'Lux Seconds', which is the standard unit of measure for exposure.

 

[kundalini]

...... and now we digress, yet again. :sad:

 

[Kerbouchard]

WARNING: The following maybe an incredibly face palming thing to say.


Doesn't ISO control the sensitivity of the light that is exposed to the sensor? I see it as two different things :S

No, ISO controls the amount the analog signal generated by the sensor is amplified before being converted to a digital signal in the analog to digital converter. The sensitivity of the sensor remains constant. The only way to change those items are through manufacturing a better chip, using a larger aperture, a longer shutter speed, or adding more light.